<![CDATA[Rapid expansion of digital banking has heightened the need for accessible and effective consumer redress, yet existing legal comparisons insufficiently connect institutional design with procedural fairness, enforceability, and regulatory reform. This study examines Indonesia’s Financial Services Sector Alternative Dispute Resolution Institution (LAPS SJK) and the United Kingdom’s Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to formulate context-sensitive reforms for banking dispute resolution in Indonesia. Employing normative legal research, it combines statutory and conceptual approaches with a functional comparative framework assessing legal authority, institutional independence, procedural fairness, the legal effects of dispute outcomes, and digital accessibility. Primary legal materials include OJK Regulation No. 61/POJK.07/2020, Law No. 4 of 2023 on Financial Sector Development and Strengthening, and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The analysis finds that LAPS SJK offers mediation, arbitration, and binding opinions within an OJK-regulated framework, whereas the FOS applies a statutory fair-and-reasonable standard, with final determinations under its compulsory jurisdiction becoming binding upon acceptance by complainants. These differences reveal distinct legal pathways for obtaining and implementing consumer redress rather than establishing the empirical superiority of either system. The study contributes an integrated comparative legal-policy framework prioritizing stronger governance safeguards, clearer compliance and enforcement procedures, and more accessible digital complaint mechanisms within Indonesia’s regulatory architecture. Future empirical research should assess compliance with dispute outcomes, consumer experiences, and institutional performance to evaluate these proposals.]]>
